Theories of originalism and living constitutionalism currently vie for approval in the courts. Originalists find that popular sovereignty can only come from ratification and legislation. Living constitutionalists fear binding the living by the votes of the dead. What would Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton think of this debate? Did the founding era public expect the original public meaning to control interpretive debates? Were the American Founders themselves originalists? In a related question, the panel will also explore the usefulness of The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist essays as interpretive tools for identifying the original public meaning of the Bill of Rights. Just how persuasive are the Anti-Federalist concerns considering their position was ultimately lost and the Constitution was ratified? How much did the “losing” arguments contribute to the original public meaning and what light do the founding era debates shed on the proper tools for constitutional interpretation?
Featuring:

Moderator: The Honorable William H. Pryor, United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law